


Aziraphale and (Sexual) Innocence

by argentconflagration



Series: Good Omens Meta [1]
Category: Good Omens (TV)
Genre: Bodyswap, Crowley (Good Omens) as the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Implied/Referenced Homophobia, Meta, Nonfiction, Other, References to Paradise Lost, Scene: Flood in Mesopotamia 3004 BC (Good Omens), The body swap (Good Omens) as sex/sexual metaphor, references to the good omens novel but not enough to tag it as a fandom, unflattering mentions of Christianity
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2019-09-01
Updated: 2019-09-01
Packaged: 2020-10-04 23:31:39
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,465
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/20479280
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/argentconflagration/pseuds/argentconflagration
Summary: In Good Omens, there are a few obviously sexually-charged elements during the course of the love story (the statue in Crowley's flat, Crowley slamming Aziraphale against a wall, etc.). At the end, Aziraphale goes back to Crowley's flat, and by morning they've entered each other's bodies. Literally sexual? Not necessarily. Metaphorically sexual?Yeah kinda.So let's talk about knowing, in the Biblical sense and otherwise.





	Aziraphale and (Sexual) Innocence

**Author's Note:**

> (This analysis is show-based— assume I'm referring to the show except where I specifically mention the book.)

As we all know, one of the biggest things that changed from the book to the show is that in the show, the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley is written as a love story. Now, of course, that doesn't necessarily imply anything sexual (and I think there's a lot of interesting things to be written about a reading of their relationship as specifically a nonsexual love story!). 

On the other hand, the interpretation of them as having either literally or metaphorically a sexual relationship is (I would say intentionally) presented to the viewer as a potential lens for viewing the story. In your average romance arc, the characters are understood to be sexually attracted to each other, and if it's at all targeted toward adults, the viewer is generally intended to assume that the characters sleep with each other at the end of the story (whether it's shown onscreen or not). In Good Omens, there are a few obviously sexually-charged elements during the course of the love story (the statue in Crowley's flat, Crowley slamming Aziraphale against a wall, etc.). At the end, Aziraphale goes back to Crowley's flat, and by morning they've [entered each other's bodies](https://ilarual.tumblr.com/post/187154881321/musings-on-the-body-swap). Literally sexual? Not necessarily. Metaphorically sexual? _Yeah kinda. _

So let's talk about knowing, in the Biblical sense and otherwise.

Crowley is the serpent of Eden, who tempts others to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and thereby introduces sin into the world. [I'm hardly the first one to point out](https://the-moon-loves-the-sea.tumblr.com/post/186485611558/fynnkaterin-crowley-a-demon-standing-in-the) that Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship involves Crowley persistently (but not insistently!) tempting Aziraphale into the knowledge of good and evil. He fell for asking questions, continues to question the Almighty's decisions throughout the show, and in general represents a force of knowledge and free will, for humanity, for himself, and for Aziraphale. 

To quote the linked post:

> "Why was the apple forbidden food? It gave the knowledge of good and evil. It enabled them to choose for themselves instead of blindly obeying orders. Why is Crowley forbidden company? He does the same."

Crowley is the serpent, the tempter, but he is also the apple, the forbidden fruit of which Aziraphale is not allowed to partake. He offers free will to Aziraphale, starting from the very beginning when he (unintentionally) reassures Aziraphale that he _can't_ do the wrong thing, up until the very end when Aziraphale tells him that he has accomplished his temptation.

By the way, why is the apple an _apple,_ anyway? Many people know, and I’m sure Pratchett and Gaiman knew, that Genesis doesn’t specify a kind of fruit. Rather, the image of a shiny red apple is a product of millennia of religious interpretation. It largely comes to us through _Paradise Lost,_ and has now long since been cemented in pop culture. Using the apple as a recurring motif in Good Omens tells us that we’re not meant to understand this as a commentary on the most literal translation of the Bible, but on Christian culture as a whole, including the parts that wildly diverge from the source text. 

And you can't talk about cultural Christianity for long without talking about purity culture. There's a lot that can be written about purity culture, but I'm going to focus on the idea that the opposite of sinful knowledge and agency is ignorant innocence and inaction. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, says purity culture. It's okay if other people suffer, so long as your own hands are clean, says purity culture. 

Perhaps the most obvious instance of Crowley trying to shake Aziraphale out of this mentality is all the way back in 3004 BC, at the Flood. Crowley tries to make Aziraphale aware of good and evil— God is going to kill the kids, and that's _wrong_ (and right and wrong can be known outside of simply adhering unquestioningly to what God says). Aziraphale defends his innocence by appealing to ignorance: the Almighty's plans are ineffable, so Aziraphale can't question them, and he's not going to do anything about it. He's trying to stay in the pre-Fall state, without knowledge, free will, or sin.

Over and over, Aziraphale can be seen engaging in basically useless, performative behavior for the sake of not being directly implicated in evil deeds. When he resists the Arrangement, it's not because it will have any meaningful impact on the world for good or evil. But it causes Aziraphale to be directly involved in evil, and it's against the rules. Similarly, he tries to persuade Crowley (and later Shadwell) to kill the Antichrist, and Crowley to vanish the airbase guard, rather than doing it himself— not because the outcome will be different, but because he wants to preserve his image of himself as pure and holy. (Worth mentioning is that this characterization is way more pronounced in the show than in the book— in the book he gives only half a line of lukewarm resistance to the idea of vanishing the soldier himself before he does it.)

But back to sex, like I promised. 

There's no two ways about it— Christian purity culture is largely about sex. So we might expect Good Omens to make some sort of commentary on the most pronounced aspect of Christian purity culture— the measuring of people's goodness based on their lack of experience (i.e. knowledge) of sexual things specifically. And what we see is that here, too, Aziraphale tries to preserve an image of himself as pure, while Crowley tries to shake him out of that mindset. 

In presenting himself as human, Aziraphale presents himself as a gay man. In general, stereotypes of gay men are hypersexualized, but the specific tropes that Aziraphale draws upon are sexless, neutered, and nonthreatening. This is epitomized by Anathema's narration (in the book) as she parts ways with Aziraphale and Crowley after the bike crash. She's very wary of getting in a car with two strange men at night, and treats the two with suspicion and hostility throughout the encounter, but concludes that "She had been perfectly safe after all" when she reads them as a gay couple. 

(It's not _only _because of Heaven's expectations that Aziraphale presents himself this way, of course (perhaps not even mostly). He doesn't want to hurt people. He'd rather avoid a war than win it, give away his sword than use it to drive away humans, go to lunch with the Adversary than thwart him— he is, in a word, soft. And after all, on a textual level, a sexual relationship with Crowley wouldn't be forbidden because it's sex, but _because it's Crowley_— it's specifically his choice of lover that Heaven would have an issue with, presenting an obvious analogy to gay identity that Aziraphale could hardly avoid picking up on. Like most aspects of Aziraphale's self-presentation, his presentation as a gay man reflects _both _his idea of what a Good Angel should be _and _who he really is.)

But in addition to presenting himself to humans in a desexualized way, Aziraphale also sets himself up as the sexual gatekeeper in his and Crowley's relationship (assuming a sexual reading of the relationship arc, that is). Christian purity culture expects women to be gatekeepers against men's sexuality, protecting both men and women from the sinfulness that is sexuality (outside of very narrow parameters). While gender is more fluid than that in Good Omens, the angel/demon binary is strong, and Aziraphale and Crowley constantly wrestle with it. Aziraphale takes it upon himself— as an angel— to protect the both of them against Crowley’s interest in furthering the relationship. 

I should mention here that Heaven's initial purpose in placing Aziraphale on earth was literally to guard a gate, and that Aziraphale immediately wanted nothing to do with that role.

And, just as he does in other matters, Crowley offers Aziraphale a way out. He doesn't pressure or force Aziraphale— he wants him to make his own decisions. Aziraphale says, "You go too fast for me." Aziraphale says, "Don't go unscrewing the cap"— i.e. "I'm ready for _this,_ but I'm not ready for everything." 

When, finally, Aziraphale and Crowley spend the night together, when they inhabit each other's bodies, when they defy Heaven and Hell together, it's the culmination of a lot of things. For Aziraphale, it's the acceptance of the knowledge that Crowley has been trying to impart to him the whole time. _Know me,_ Crowley says. _And know yourself._ The fear of falling _(from Heaven, from Eden, in love)_ has been overcome— there never was an apple that wasn't worth the trouble you got into for eating it. 

In conclusion, Crowley said fuck the expectations of purity culture, sexual and otherwise. Now, go forth and write _thematically resonant_ smut. It's what Michael Sheen would want. 

**Author's Note:**

> Thanks to [chaoticlivi](https://archiveofourown.org/users/chaoticlivi) for providing some key insights and a whole lot of encouragement!
> 
> I've never done "proper" meta like this before, but boy howdy does Good Omens inspire me to dig deep into the themes of the show! Gardens and apples and falling, oh my! It all feels like a blessed and healing re-run of my unpleasant childhood experiences with religion. There is so much more I want to say, and so much great stuff that other people have pointed out, I want to read it all!

**Works inspired by this one:**

  * [[PODFIC] Aziraphale and (Sexual) Innocence, by argentconflagration](https://archiveofourown.org/works/21854710) by [Thimblerig](https://archiveofourown.org/users/Thimblerig/pseuds/Thimblerig)


End file.
